BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

9 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 206C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi149Pune142Bangalore117Chennai80Raipur39Mumbai25Karnataka22Kolkata18Cochin13Panaji10Rajkot9Dehradun8Lucknow7Jodhpur5Jaipur4Chandigarh4Ahmedabad3Indore3Hyderabad3Amritsar3

Key Topics

Section 206C(7)12Section 206C(6)12Section 2069TDS9Section 234E5Section 206C5

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

ITA 228/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr
Section 206

206C(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raising demand of 1 raising demand of Rs.4,12,050/- by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account of non-deduction

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

ITA 147/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
19 Sept 2025
AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr
Section 206

206C(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raising demand of 1 raising demand of Rs.4,12,050/- by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account of non-deduction

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

ITA 227/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr
Section 206

206C(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raising demand of 1 raising demand of Rs.4,12,050/- by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account of non-deduction

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

ITA 148/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr
Section 206

206C(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raising demand of 1 raising demand of Rs.4,12,050/- by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account by treating appellant as defaulter u/s.206C(6) of 1. the Act on account of non-deduction

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 54/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

6. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that assessee has not complied with required under section 206C of the Act. Firstly, the assessee has not collected the tax and secondly, in case tax was not collectable, the assessee has not obtained Form 27C as per requirements under the relevant section. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that Form 27C is required

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 51/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

6. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that assessee has not complied with required under section 206C of the Act. Firstly, the assessee has not collected the tax and secondly, in case tax was not collectable, the assessee has not obtained Form 27C as per requirements under the relevant section. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that Form 27C is required

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 52/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

6. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that assessee has not complied with required under section 206C of the Act. Firstly, the assessee has not collected the tax and secondly, in case tax was not collectable, the assessee has not obtained Form 27C as per requirements under the relevant section. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that Form 27C is required

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 53/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

6. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that assessee has not complied with required under section 206C of the Act. Firstly, the assessee has not collected the tax and secondly, in case tax was not collectable, the assessee has not obtained Form 27C as per requirements under the relevant section. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that Form 27C is required

VIMALBHAI MOHANBHAI NARIYA PROP. S.M. CORPORATION,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, , JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose/

ITA 359/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 359/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri V. P. Sutaria, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 234ESection 234eSection 260CSection 44A

6. During the course of argument, the Learned Appellant Representative (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. AR”) of the assessee engaged in business of Scrap and sold scrapes to the manufactures there was no requirement to collect TCS on such sale declarations form obtain from the manufacturer in Form 27C and was submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) Jamnagar